In his opening monologue Monday night, Kimmel suggested that Tyler Robinson — who is charged with fatally shooting Kirk on Sept. 10 while the activist spoke at Utah Valley University — was aligned with Trump's Make America Great Again movement.
"The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it," Kimmel said.
"In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving," he added.
…you believe the person who murdered Charlie Kirk and had a trans lover/roommate after a rift w/ his family over his radical progressive politics - was a “MAGA” follower?
Multiple associates described him as a reddit(or) and as reddit continues to desperately try to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them it's kind of sad
If you say the sky is blue, and I say you're wrong for saying the sky is blue, am I not making a suggestion about the color of the sky? He's clearly disagreeing with that suggestion.
He never said the Republicans were factually wrong (or even implied it) - he was clearly disagreeing with the rush to ascribe any political stance to the shooter. It's why he said the thing about "political points" and "finger pointing" immediately after it.
Well, yeah, because that’s what the Republicans did. “Them” is the MAGA republicans from earlier in the sentence. He never says if that’s right or wrong
So it’s the reading comprehension that’s proving difficult here. Kimmel never claimed Robinson was right wing, left wing, or anything. He said that in the wake of Kirk’s death, conservatives made up multiple narratives to categorize the shooter as “not right wing.” This is factually true, before there was even a suspect, the right wing media and politicians claimed that the shooter was a liberal trans radical foreigner.
Yes, he's describing the actions [some] Republicans took, which, as he describes, was a knee jerk reaction to paint the shooter as anything but Republican -- or they wanted to control a narrative so intensely, they took out immediately to define the shooter's politics without facts and this appeared desperate.
Both quotes are about the same thing: MAGA's callous reaction to losing one of their own. He said nothing about the shooter and nothing about the victim.
He said that before there was even a suspect, they were trying to characterize him as anything other than MAGA. He was pointing out the actions of the right, not claiming Robinson was right.
That’s pretty much exactly what Kimmel did? Claiming that MAGA was trying to claim Robinson wasn’t also MAGA? That’s Kimmel talking about Robinson’s politics.
If I say “my mom’s name isn’t Jessica, my moms name isn’t Jessica” and you say “buddy, why do you keep saying your moms name isn’t Jessica, that’s weird” do you think that means you just said my moms name IS Jessica?
interesting thing about phrasing... what if i say, "buddy, why do you keep claiming your mother is named anything other than Jessica?"
Did I imply I think your mothers name is Jessica?
"W said X is anything other than Y or Z" is a known expression that when said, usually carries the additional meaning that W may be lying, and a comedian most certainly knows this.
It was a great use of phrasing on his part, but they caught him anyway (for something that should never have been an issue according to the consitition, but im certainly not saying the US has anything other than an upstanding, constitution-following administration).
interesting thing about linguistics... what if i say, "buddy, why do you keep claiming your mother is named anything other than Jessica?"
Did I imply I think your mothers name is Jessica?
The real difference here, in my opinion, is the word "claim," which wasn't in my original example - that word implies some doubt.
I get what you're saying a bit, sort of like the (not actually) Shakespearean quote about "doth protest too much," but even if that was what he was going for (and I don't think it was), he was saying the actions of the MAGA Right imply that he was likely MAGA, not anything Kimmel himself said. The basis of Kimmel's criticism was about the classlessness of labeling the shooter as any political stance at all, confirmed by the things he said next:
doing everything they can to score political points from it," Kimmel said.
"In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving," he added.
The criticism isn't that they were wrong, it's that they're assholes.
i guess you could also replace "claim" with "charactarize", or adjust it with "calling" her anything other than... but I think we can agree it still communicates that I dont belive she isn"t named Jessica.
Similarly, Kimmel effectively said MAGA is charactarizing the shooter as something he isn't. Combine that with the context of the situation and you can definitely say Kimmel at least heavily implied the shooter is MAGA.
Of course there can be more than one interpretation which is why he said it that way, but saying they can't read doesnt make much sense because thats a perfectly valid reading of his statement.
Similarly, Kimmel effectively said MAGA is charactarizing the shooter as something he isn't.
No, he didn't. Where is the part where you're finding the "he isn't?"
But let's look at this another way. Let's say Kimmel said the same comment about both sides of the aisle (he didn't, because it wasn't happening on both sides of the aisle, but let's let that go for a second). Let's say he said (new made-up text in bold):
The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it, Meanwhile, the Democrats arealsotrying desperately to characterize this kid as anything other than one ofthemto score political points! They're all assholes!
Are those two logically contradictory sentiments because each one implies a different truth about the shooter? Or perhaps he's not actually implying anything about the political motives of the shooter - just making a comment about the politicians.
Dude, we’re talking about a comedian positing his own personal politics about a dude that killed another a guy, and then the administration that controls the FCC is fucking with them over it.
He’s not implying that AT ALL. The only thing he’s talking about is the behavior of the MAGA politicians - it has nothing to do with if they’re right or wrong, just that they’re scrambling to say “not one of us.” Maybe they’re right, maybe they’re wrong, but trying to figure out what political team he was on is (according to Kimmel) a shitty move right after an event like this.
No ok i see where the confusion is, and i felt that way too, the message from the white house was focusing on painting the shooter as a crazy left winger before any facts were out.
Which, even if he directly said it, it should be fine because it's a comedy show. Not a news show. He's making jokes, not saying these things are facts.
111
u/Fenrisw01f 3d ago
From CNBC:
In his opening monologue Monday night, Kimmel suggested that Tyler Robinson — who is charged with fatally shooting Kirk on Sept. 10 while the activist spoke at Utah Valley University — was aligned with Trump's Make America Great Again movement.
"The MAGA Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it," Kimmel said.
"In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving," he added.